Re: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014

On Sep 20, 2012, at 5:44 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On 09/20/2012 07:44 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Paul,
>>> 
>>> Similarly, I was surprised by what is stated for Issue-194
>>> full-transcript attribute :
>>> 
>>>     Allow the A11y TF the authority to produce an extension spec that
>>> includes full-transcript. If such a specification obtains consensus
>>> and meets the proposed CR exit criteria by 2014Q2 it could be folded
>>> back into the core HTML spec at that time.
>>> 
>>> We already have two change proposals for this issue that both came out
>>> of the a11y TF. I was under impression that the next step was a
>>> decision by the chairs. Are you now expecting the a11y TF to decide
>>> between the two change proposals and come up with spec text for it?
>> 
>> 
>> Would the following work for you?  (Changes in _UNDERSCORED_CAPS_)
>> 
>> Allow the A11y TF the authority to produce _ONE_OR_MORE_ extension spec_S_
>> that include full-transcript. If _ANY_ such a specification obtains
>> consensus and meets the proposed CR exit criteria by 2014Q2 it could be
>> folded back into the core HTML spec at that time.
> 
> 
> I think so. However, I assume that the existing 3 change proposals
> already are 3 extension specifications, so I assume we are already at
> the stage of asking to find out where consensus lies.

The Change Proposals could probably easily be changed into extension specs but are not themselves extension specs. Here is an example of what an extension spec should look like: <http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/>. In other words, it should be a document that can stand alone, not a set of edit instructions with rationale.

Note that to reintegrate any such extension would require not only consensus (and we may not have consensus on either at the moment) but also meeting the CR exit criteria. At this time, it does not appear there are any implementations of either of the proposals that add something for transcripts.


> I am a bit surprised about all this, though, because issues in the
> past that were provided with multiple change proposals and had gone
> through a phase of input from the WG were then analysed by the chairs
> and a decision was made about which CP to accept, or what path to take
> next. This seems to have been replaced by pushing the CP discussion
> into the a11y TF. I'm curious about the reasons for this. Is it
> because there are no implementations of this feature and therefore it
> is at risk for HTML5?

Yes, the transcript feature would automatically be at risk if added to HTML5 in its current state. Whereas an extension spec can proceed on its own timeline.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 00:50:11 UTC